Judiciary releases 2022 edition of Administrative Tribunals Judicial Review Guide amid concern over non-compliance with civil procedure rules and practice guidelines

The Judiciary of Courts and Tribunals has released the 2022 edition of the Judicial Review Guide for Administrative Tribunals, with senior judges expressing concern about the problems the Court faces when parties fail to follow the rules of civil procedure and practical guidelines.

The Judiciary of Courts and Tribunals said that the 2022 edition “reflects the legislative and practical changes concerning the Administrative Court over the past year”.

The publication includes advice on:

  • litigants in person
  • civil restraining orders
  • launch a complaint
  • application for leave for judicial review
  • specific practice points
  • urgent cases
  • substantive hearings
  • remedies
  • case management
  • costs
  • calls

In the foreword, Dame Victoria Sharp DBE, President of the King’s Bench Division, wrote: “This is the seventh edition of the Guide to Judicial Review, which has become a valuable resource for all involved in proceedings before the Administrative Court. It covers all the steps of an application for judicial review. Best practices are identified and pitfalls announced. It is required reading for anyone conducting judicial review cases (whether they are lawyers or not). »

The article continues below…

All Court users are required to follow the Guide when preparing and presenting their cases.

In the preface to the 2022 edition, Administrative Court Judge Judge Swift and Judge Chamberlain wrote: “The guide directs readers to the relevant sections of the Rules of Civil Procedure and associated practice directions. . Over the past few years, the Administrative Court has become one of the busiest specialist courts within the High Court. It is imperative that anyone involved in judicial review proceedings know and follow the rules of civil procedure and practice guidelines so that the Court’s resources (including the time of judges who sit on the administrative tribunal) are used effectively.

“That hasn’t always been the case in the past. The Court has had problems. To name a few: requests claiming unnecessary urgency; overly long written arguments and bundles of documents; authorities and summary arguments being filed very late and in the wrong format. The Court had occasion to reaffirm the importance of carefully considering whether urgency is required in R (DVP) v. Secretary of State at the Ministry of the Interior [2021] EWHC 606 (administrator). The Court also emphasized the importance of conciseness in the statement of reasons and summary arguments. On these and other topics, the Guide sets out in clear terms what is expected. The parties and/or their legal representatives may be subject to sanctions if they do not comply.